Replies to post #352063 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[yambike]

No. wrong.

takings claim is contingent on due process. that means ability to litigate for the taking. until every case has been dismissed due process claim cannot hold in court. hence yhe reasoning behind so many cases.

the govt players abused language of HERA. now they jeopardized not only HERA but FDIA too.

[Donotunderstand]

big yank

you noted

Fairholme has failed before Judge Sweeney because it has become a stalking horse for other plaintiffs in other suits looking for proof of claims other than the Fifth Amendment taking


Are you saying that the Judge in the Fairholme case will not try that "complaint" on its merits - but will somehow be moved to decide differently because discovery material has been shared?

I find that strange and maybe outrageous

If true to any degree - might one say in equal fashion that the judge - seeing other judges hem and haw - will rule far more in favor of Fairholme than the merits (in her opinion) deserve?

I find thinking that the discovery material impacts the core complaint decision to be strange and borderline outrageous in its implications

[Potty]

For someone who claims to know the legal process this seems very naive. It is tough to win against the government and the law in this niche area will be made or clarified by the coming rulings.

The multi-pronged legal attacks, from distinct plaintiffs I might add, means that if a quirky bench ignores one argument then there are a couple of others to carry the weight instead.

Tactically, discovery has been a god send, since although it may be stale for us it remains that when sent back to Lamberth he will be well aware that the government knowingly misled him on the facts -- as has now been documented by just a handful of released materials. Lamberth will not be a happy camper about being made to look a fool. Depending on guidance from the Appeals Court, Lamberth may be very far from the government's friend.

And we plausibly know why they do not want the Presidential stuff to come out. Either (i) their are explicit emails showing collusion and intent to avoid GSE's coming out of conservatorship and/or (ii) explicit knowledge of financial situation being better than publicly portrayed and/or (iii) explicit discussion of using the GSE revenue stream to fund the shortfall in funds for Obama care -- which looks VERY plausible. How would (iii) change Republican attitudes on NWS? I can see someone wanting to settle before we run through docs outlining (i)-(iii). Sweeney has given them a chance to be sensible, she will press on soon after Perry ruling.

So, I think putting all the eggs in one legal basket would have been rash. And I think discovery remains a huge positive and potential impetus to settlement. A positive Perry ruling would kickstart many other developments in other cases IMHO as well as sending some poor decisions flowing from Lamberth into the trash can.

Berko has been very well -- and expensively -- advised.